General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (nadinbrzezinski) on Sun Jun 7, 2015, 08:28 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Oh, dear, where are my smelling salts. I think I shall faint at the thought of it! Thoughts have wings you know. Lest the gods be listening . . . .
NBachers
(19,438 posts)
Unknown Beatle
(2,691 posts)
CTyankee
(68,201 posts)couches, not strong women like BainsBane. No one is having those vapors but your side. It's a level of inanity and desperation that says a lot...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)country, women included, are not as easily offended as it appears a small % of the online population would like people to believe. That would make one 'side' as you see it, pretty small and insignificant in the scheme of things, though here on this forum one might get the opposite impression and maybe it's a good thing to point that out finally.
CTyankee
(68,201 posts)some women on DU that really wasn't going on. I've seen that poster or a variation of it used here twice in the last day or so...nowhere did anyone on our side of the argument ever do anything of a sort. It's a fiction. Totally made up and frankly, I think, trying to diminish our side of the argument. Saying that we are weak and hysterical...the usual charges against strong women with strong opinions...I've seen it so often in my long life...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to be as offended as they are, which of course they have a right to be, about every little perceived 'word' use. What you are seeing is a reaction to years of allowing this one small group to determine what is most important to Women and what words, because it isn't just one word, are acceptable and not acceptable.
Most of us women here have refrained from discussing women's issues here, and I know this because over the years I have been told this by all of the women I have come to know here, and just left the topic to them. However now maybe the rest of the women here who have a right also to THEIR opinions, but who are often attacked here for daring to disagree with this small group, are beginning to realize that they too are characterized by what has become DU 'policy' on women's issues.
This group does not represent me and I believe, though they don't appear to agree, that I too have a right to state my opinion as a woman. Women are not all the same in their views, or their Life Experiences. What offends some may not offend others. THAT seems to be a mortal sin to say here.
I will state my opinion regardless of who likes it or who doesn't on women's issues. THAT is what the courageous women who came before us fought for when it was far less easy to do.
Now I will await the usual personal attacks, which bother me not one little bit but it is predictable.
CTyankee
(68,201 posts)But I do believe that we can have a discussion and air both sides without resorting to fainting couches and vapors every time a woman makes a strong argument about that word's usage. Why not make it about say, for instance, the First Amendment and both sides can argue it out. That way it says, OK here's my 2 cents without using the stereotypical reference to women's supposed "weakness." Aren't we better than that?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I'm afraid. The atmosphere that has been created here makes it impossible to make your argument, eg, re the 1st Amendment. Or even that women are different, have different life experiences that may cause them to have a different reaction to words as opposed to say, issues that in their lives take far more precedence even while acknowledging that words are important.
What dominates DU IS this one issue and anyone who dares to point out that it is not the ONLY issue, and that not all men, or women for that matter, whose language use isn't what might be considered acceptable in 'polite circles' are anti-women or that now overused and often wrongly used word 'misogynists' facing women today, is instantly berated.
The overall impression of DU around the internet when it comes to Women's issues is that there is only one important issue, the use of words.
Eg, as a Democratic Forum one would expect to see the same reaction words get, over a thouand comments, to the fact that we still do not have the ERA in this country. That rape in the military is rampant eg. But post something about those issues here and it's likely to sink like a rock. Which says to me, that the 'concern' for women here is questionable to say the least.
I have no problem eg, with other women's belief that word usage is the most important issue facing women today, that is their right even though I strongly disagree. However that is not enough to fend of accusations of being a 'cohort of misogynists' etc because one must agree or be called, as I was in one of the more amusing personal attacks I have experienced, 'a descendant of the abusers of women'.
I would very much like to be able to have a civil discussion on these issues here, so would a lot of other women, however in the current atmosphere it simply isn't worth it.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Don't sign up for a website with terms of service that prohibits it. If you feel the need to insult people based on gender, race, or sexuality, ask yourself why you see the subaltern as so inferior to the privileged. DU isn't a Hollywood movie. It's a political site organized around support for the Democratic Party, the majority of which is comprised of women. I take this PSA about some movie as a pretext because I seriously doubt you think anyone cares about some random movie and that your post instead is aimed at people who seek to uphold respect in use of language about and to women.
Language is important because it signals meaning. This is not the UK or Australia. This is the US, and it is a website that is supposed to be frequented by people who respect members of the population regardless of race, gender, or sexuality. The only way we know one another is through our words, and using bigoted language signals clear meaning. If language is incidental, so are your posts and those of every other member of this site.
I submit that repeating and justifying such language perpetuates bigotry. It is not acceptable among any civilized people or anyone who has even a modicum of respect for their fellow citizens. If, however, people have nothing to say but merely wish to express hatred, those are the go to terms. That is in fact their purpose. I myself have a pretty foul mouth in real life, but I know when I can use certain words and when I can't. Even so, that particular word isn't part of my repertoire. In fact, none of the foul words I use are about race, gender, or sexuality. There are so many other options, that one only turns to those words when the point is to demean someone for a mere accident of birth. Since I don't wish to convey such meaning, I choose different words. To pretend there is something odd about being offended by words that are in fact INTENDED to offend is ridiculous.
During a time when we have debate about whether the Democratic party is to serve the interests of the white middle class or of the mosaic that makes up America, justifying the use of such language makes clear where people stand on that issue. It contributes to an exclusionary politics, of the few and by the few.
I also find it wholly offensive that people are blaming and targeting women by repeating and justifying bigotry rather than taking their complaints to the administrators. It once again reaffirms my view that too many favor a society that promotes their own interests to the exclusion of the majority, a majority they feel fit to demean with bigoted language. Political views are not separate from language, and we see in this case they mirror each other precisely.
I find it unfortunate that some have used NYCSkp's banning to target the subaltern. Like so many other events that have transpired on this site, women and feminists in particular are again scapegoated, even though it was a man who banned NYCSkp. Thus we see the banning is merely pretext for the far more pernicious performance of privilege.
We live in a world where the population on this site is the minority, everywhere but on this little corner of the internet. In no place is America is the population so white, so elderly, and so affluent. What we witness here is angst about the changing demographics in American society and the fact that people now have to compete on a more equal playing field. So we have on one hand men telling women what their political concerns should be and who best represents their interests, and we have a similar demonstration by whites over people of color. We have post after post recalling the halcyon days of the Democratic party, of FDR and JFK, a party that served the interests of the white middle class to the exclusion of the majority. No matter how many times people have it pointed out that the party also supported Jim Crow in those years and that the majority of Americans were denied basic rights and lived in crippling poverty, a few continue to hearken back to a period when their own group prospered at the expense of the majority. Now we see that same determination to regain lost privilege through language. It is become crystal clear to me that I am witnessing a politics of exclusion posing as liberalism/leftism. The promotion and defense of bigoted language conforms with that exclusionary politics.
Clearly stated. Thank you. I agree with this post.
Why, one would have to consider that DU means a whole lot to think that one little written word ruins it for everyone.
What pisses me off is that there is no equality inherent in the arguments made. And that some are so hip to making sure lots of posters get banned from DU.
Peeps, get this: This country, this DU, this party is never going to me homogenized. Live with it. Besides, bombs are the real fucking hurt and nearly everyone here has blame for that hurt.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I suggest you go talk to the LGBT and AA groups about words. You might learn something.
Also, this?
That's exactly what people mean when they talk about not feeling a part of the new movement.
Bigotry?
Live with it.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Who is perfect? Who is not without error? Who never made a friggin mistake?
This purity crap is just that.
If you don't want to deal with the impurity of humans go live in a cave, by yourself, and never ever contribute one dime toward bombs or anything else that ever causes anybody any harm. New movement, my ass.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)You want a party where people just have to live with bigotry and not say a damned thing about it.
Sorry, not going to happen. So, stop trying to make it more pure the way you want it, which is unfortunately to accept bigotry.
edit to clarify meaning.. if we were to follow your advice, it would mean acceptance of bigotry.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Moaning on and on about a word being uttered is a waste of time.
I never said accept bigotry. That was entirely your word and what I consider a personal attack and flamebait.
The world is a cruel place. And being as there are much worse things than being called a name (like bombs dropping on one's head) this ""Ban them now"" crusade really seems quite petty.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)You most certainly did say, we ought to ignore it because people make mistakes... And it was in the lines of your purity comment... Why would you try to limit what others say about bigotry?
On another note of interest concerning our little conversation here.... if we were to use your reasoning, why are you upset about something typed out on the internet. It's just words right? My words seem offensive to you...
I'm sorry, but using the word bigotry or describing acceptance thereof, is not offensive but using bigoted/racist/homophobic/misogynistic slurs... Those slurs are used for a purpose and not by "mistake". So, I'm not following your line very well, because it's becoming muddled. You want to the right to be offended by my saying you want a different type of purity where bigotry is accepted because people make mistakes, yet you don't feel others can be offended and should be able to voice it.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)"This purity crap is just that." You talk the talk, but... 
I happen to agree that the word under discussion is sexist, offensive, and inappropriate for DU.
samsingh
(18,426 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)like a new toy for political purposes. USING women for political purposes is sexist. Creating the impression that women are weaklings who must be ushered out of the room with their fingers in their ears lest they be so offended they might not be able function because of a turn of phrase harks back to the Victorian Era when men had their own smoking rooms so women's tender feelings and ears would not be offended by male discussions.
DU does not represent women in general on the issue of women which is why most women here, stay away from the topic and leave it to the small, vocal group that has claimed that topic for themselves.
Beautiful.
boston bean
(36,931 posts)Over the past three days she has been appalled and disgusted with many things posted here:
1) a woman using the acronym MRA
2) Fat shaming
3) anti Semitism
4) and this very OP here, where it seems there is some offense women here committed that she is complaining about.
5) bullying
Strange isn't it, that words on an internet message board are so bothersome and convey something to her she finds offensive? Yet for others who feel a very similar way (how she feels about anti Semitism and fat shaming and bullying) regarding slurs against women, there is no quarter given nor understanding, just contempt.
whathehell
(30,468 posts)"Mysogyny is the last acceptable bigotry of the Left". Katha Poliit, The Nation.
Response to boston bean (Reply #11)
Post removed
brer cat
(27,587 posts)Your entire post is thoughtful and on target. I would like to repeat: "It is not acceptable among any civilized people or anyone who has even a modicum of respect for their fellow citizens. If, however, people have nothing to say but merely wish to express hatred, those are the go to terms." I would like to believe that we are better than this, that we can discuss issues and air our disagreements without the need to toss around hurtful, degrading words.
I like NYC_SKP very much: the issue is not the man but that he chose to debase a person representing our party at the highest level. I can't believe anyone here would allow another DUer to hurl the "n" word at PBO or call Bernie Sanders the "k" word, no matter how cleverly disguised. Why wouldn't we extend the same respect to a female candidate?
To suggest that the banning in this instance was due to the admin's support of Hillary is simply a deflection to avoid taking responsibility for civil discourse. Many of SKP's defenders are simply piling on the bile by suggesting that only weak women taking to their fainting couch could possibly find offense. Having nothing to say but reducing women to a cutesy meme suggests that the poster considers women insignificant and worthy of abuse. Not exactly what we expect from progressive democrats, and that is what this forum is about.
I was so pissed off reading that screed of smarmy disingenuous, I nearly flamed out - but you articulated what pissed me off so freaking much. It's not about a word and everyone knows it. It's about the intent behind the word. I am so sick of people claiming it's the word police. No, it's about being a decent human being.
diamondhead
(54 posts)
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)whathehell
(30,468 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Well done, in any case. A thorough a take down of the passive aggressive nonsense in the OP.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it is the passive aggressive used by that group to avoid issues like the welfare reform of the 1990s that did quite a bit of damage to women and PoC. Far more than a mere word. And if you are easily offended, avoid the movie too.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I am, however, supposedly on your Ignore List.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)mind you, I was thinking about you when I posted that. You might want to avoid that comedy. It is not the only "bad language" in there.
Sorry if over the years I've learned words really don't put food in. The table, or get more hours, or deal with sexual abuse in the work place. Do carry on.
By the way, the most insulting play on words I like to use is frack, I am a BSG fan. A series that was extremely intelligently put together.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)And it damn sure ain't comments by anonymous posters on internet boards.
As far as people saying offensive stuff on those boards, I sympathize with those who find the language offensive or rude even if they themselves are not offended or can shrug it off. And I found out the hard way trying to lecture some people on another board about how they were being overly sensitive over some issue. I was completely humbled by their point that there are other people on the other end of the keyboard and they do have their own personalities and sensitivities and even if I don't care too much about it, I should try to be more kind.
It is really really hard not to fall for the ugliness and it is very very hard not to go on the defensive when you perceive you're being attacked or unfairly maligned, again by anonymous people. I admit wholeheartedly that I have failed in that regard on many occasions. I keep forgetting that there are other people on the other end of the keyboard.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)When watching a movie or tv show that has objectionable language, it's my choice whether or not I watch that movie or continue to watch it if I'm offended. This choice is based on my own standards of what I find acceptable in entertainment.
When we sign up at DU, we do so with the understanding that there are certain rules we must follow and if we don't follow those rules, there are consequences. It's right there in the TOS of the site.
The admin have clearly stated they have the final say on what is a bannable offense. They decided that NYC_Skp had crossed some line that they wanted to ban him.
It amazes me that some people demean others for not wanting to see insulting language on DU. That it's okay to use language that the majority of the female population finds offensive--even if done in a so-called clever way that obviously wasn't so clever since a male admin found it so offensive that he decided to ban NYC_Skp.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,713 posts)
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)trash thread/ ignore
Blue_Adept
(6,499 posts)when taken into context of what's going on when I saw it Friday night. Just a reminder of the bubble of sorts.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)as a good person, a preacher who openly attack LGBT people and holds international anti equality conferences with Family Research Council and NOM invited.
So the context in which I read your defenses of a banned poster who, like you, felt religious people should be free to shout invective at LGBT people while they themselves remain protected from any criticism or punishment no matter how vile their tirades become.
You are a person who thinks hate speech is acceptable if it streams out of the right clergy and toward the right minorities.
So according to you, DU is both exactly like an R rated movie and also exactly like a Catholic Church because you argue that folks should be able to use this word you like so much but also that folks should be able to celebrate anti gay hate speakers out of 'respect for religion'.
So what context do you want for DU? Is this an R rated night club? If so your Pope promoting is far out of line dear. Is this more like a Church? If so, this verbiage you advocate here is not appropriate for the context.
What you want is to have it all ways, you get to praise the Pope and use insulting language.
All of this is a towering hypocrisy when done on behalf of NYC_SKP who opposed free expression and openly claimed that those who use provocative and insulting speech should expect retribution. He wanted it both ways too. Just like you. One day it is 'respect for the sacred' then next 'I get to use slurs against people'.
randome
(34,845 posts)And take your arrogant PSAs and paste them on the mirror so you can reassure yourself of how much better than everyone else you are.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]
Blue_Adept
(6,499 posts)If you don't like DU, leave forever. Again.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6793502
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
COMMENTS
Plainly a personal attack.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Jun 7, 2015, 10:13 AM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing wrong with this post, considering the tone of the OP.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert comes across like a schoolyard tattletale. There is nothing slanderous in the post, imho.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Internet bullying. Yes, plainly a personal attack.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Tho too personal and harsh, original might have been more appropriate in different group.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Totally unprovoked personal attack. Not even on topic.
Thank you.
randome
(34,845 posts)PSAS are for our own good! 
Can't believe it got as many as 3 hides.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)DU has another spat of antisemitism...and you will get your wish. But this points the ridiculousness of banning somebody for not saying the scarlet letters. The jury results are more evidence to the dysfunction of the site.
Days are spent on a word...but not even minutes on actual policies that affect women in the real world. Lemme help ya here. There is this thing called ignored, you might want to use it.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)democratic nominees is a woman,it really shouldn't be that difficult to stop yourself from word games that infer that she's a c**t,unless you're twelve.
malaise
(296,102 posts)Great thread 
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I know a lot of folks are ticked over that particular banning, and maybe think it should have been something lesser, such as an automatic 90 day vacation, but if you want to make the case that you think the particular poster deserved better, that it was a one off that shouldn't have been made, and doesn't reflect the entire body of work of the poster, just make that argument. Don't try to defend the use of the word in a totally different context, another place and time, and try to pretend the two are equivalent. You're better than that. I've seen you make a lot of useful contributions to the site, but this was probably better left unposted.
Violet_Crumble
(36,385 posts)I'll be upfront. While I don't use the offending word much, I've uttered it in real life about our RW politicians, and sometimes used it when someone steals my carpark. And I've been called it as a greeting thing between friends a few times, but it's all good coz of where I live and the word doesn't have the same usage here...
But I won't call anyone it at DU. I will utter it without the stup*d asteri*k if there's a discussion of the word itself. And that's because that's very different than aiming it at someone in anger. I was just on a jury for a post where the blanked out weird version of the word was used, and I voted to leave it because it's so stupid to alert on a discussion on the use of the word where the sanitised G-rated version is used. And I know I'm safe as houses and won't get nuked or censured in any way because I'm pretty much 100% sure that Skinner and EarlG get the whole context thing...
I get that what NYC_SKP did was use a spoonerism a nuked troll he was replying to had used, but what he did was pretty stupid. He should have stuck to my guidelines for use of the word and he would have been fine...
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And of course someone would be banned for calling President Obama that, even with some clever spoonerizing.
As others have said, context is everything.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and there are scholastic books versions of Mark Twain's books that have those words removed.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)would love to have you join in. most started in 2008.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)This was many years ago - they were driving around my friend's neighborhood in NYC and passed a beauty parlor with a sign in the window stating: "Shag and Blow $15.00." - "shag" is U.K. slang for sexual intercourse but in the U.S. then it meant a hairstyle. Auntie exclaimed, "OH MY" and all had a good laugh. 
DISCLAIMER EDIT: I don't use the word at issue in this thread. Ever.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)See: f**.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and I laughed hard.
But if people are so easily offended, don't.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)But by all means, continue to condescend to the rest of us.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)or DU cliques.
One gets easily offended. The other gets offended by things with actual real life effects. Quite frankly the way one tribe reacted to this, it is honestly a PSA. I expect you guys to really get offended by that movie.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Context matters. 99% of the women I've ever known are highly offended by that slur.